research paper volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/carlinovesuvpercep.pdfresearch...

15
Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons with other volcanic areas and implications for emergency management S. Carlino a, , R. Somma a , G.C. Mayberry b a Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)-Sezione di Napoli, Osservatorio Vesuviano, Via Diocleziano, 328- 80125 Napoli, Italy b U.S. Geological Survey, National Center MS 926A, Reston, VA 20192, USA Received 3 November 2006; accepted 11 December 2007 Available online 21 April 2008 Abstract More than 600 000 people are exposed to volcanic risk in the urban areas near the volcano, Vesuvius, and may need to be evacuated if there is renewed volcanic activity. The success of a future evacuation will strongly depend on the level of risk perception and preparedness of the at-risk communities during the current period of quiescence. The volcanic risk perception and preparedness of young people is of particular importance because hazard education programs in schools have been shown to increase the clarity of risk perception and students often share their knowledge with their parents. In order to evaluate young people's risk perception and preparedness for a volcanic crisis, a multiple choice questionnaire was distributed to 400 high-school students in three municipalities located close to the volcano. The overall results suggest that despite a 60-year period of quiescence at Vesuvius, the interviewed students have an accurate perception of the level of volcanic risk. On the other hand, the respondents demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of volcanic processes and their related hazards. Also, the interviewed students show high levels of fear, poor perceived ability to protect themselves from the effects of a future eruption, and insufficient knowledge of the National Emergency Plan for Vesuvian Area (NEPVA). The latter result suggests that in comparison with volcanic crises in other regions, during a future eruption of Vesuvius, there may not be enough time to educate the large number of people living near the volcano about how to appropriately respond. The inadequate risk education and preparedness of respondents implies that a strong effort is needed to improve communication strategies in order to facilitate successful evacuations. Therefore, it is important to take advantage of the present period of quiescence at Vesuvius to improve the accuracy of risk perception of youth in local communities. © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: risk perception; disasters; evacuation plan; Vesuvius; volcanic hazard 1. Introduction Vesuvius has a history of explosive eruptions that have pro- ven to be deadly for those living near it. While stories about its most famous eruptions are still prevalent in popular culture, the lack of an eruption since 1944 has led to complacency among residents near the volcano (Dobran, 2006). Almost 600 000 people reside in the Red Zone, an approximately 250-km 2 area around Vesuvius defined by the government's National Emergency Plan for the Vesuvian Area (NEPVA) as likely to experience the most hazardous effects of pyroclastic flows and lahars in the event of a large subplinian eruption (ISTAT, 1991; Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Dipartimento delle Protezione Civile, 1995, 2001; ISTAT, 2001). According to NEPVA, an additional estimated 1100 000 people could be affected by heavy ash and lapilli fallout and lahars in the 1800-km 2 Yellow Zone. Past studies have shown that residents near Vesuvius do not have high levels of perceived volcanic risk (Davis et al., 2005; Barberi et al.; 2006, Dobran, 2006). The fundamental equation of volcanic risk is defined as: risk = hazard × vulnerability, where hazard refers to the probability of the occurrence of a specific volcanic phenomenon, and vulnerability defines the degree of loss Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229 243 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Carlino). 0377-0273/$ - see front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.010

Upload: others

Post on 31-Jul-2020

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores

Research paper

Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius:Comparisons with other volcanic areas and implications

for emergency management

S. Carlino a,⁎, R. Somma a, G.C. Mayberry b

a Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)-Sezione di Napoli, Osservatorio Vesuviano, Via Diocleziano, 328- 80125 Napoli, Italyb U.S. Geological Survey, National Center MS 926A, Reston, VA 20192, USA

Received 3 November 2006; accepted 11 December 2007Available online 21 April 2008

Abstract

More than 600000 people are exposed to volcanic risk in the urban areas near the volcano,Vesuvius, andmay need to be evacuated if there is renewedvolcanic activity. The success of a future evacuation will strongly depend on the level of risk perception and preparedness of the at-risk communitiesduring the current period of quiescence. The volcanic risk perception and preparedness of young people is of particular importance because hazardeducation programs in schools have been shown to increase the clarity of risk perception and students often share their knowledge with theirparents. In order to evaluate young people's risk perception and preparedness for a volcanic crisis, a multiple choice questionnaire was distributed to400 high-school students in three municipalities located close to the volcano. The overall results suggest that despite a 60-year period of quiescence atVesuvius, the interviewed students have an accurate perception of the level of volcanic risk. On the other hand, the respondents demonstrate a clear lackof understanding of volcanic processes and their related hazards. Also, the interviewed students show high levels of fear, poor perceived ability to protectthemselves from the effects of a future eruption, and insufficient knowledge of the National Emergency Plan for Vesuvian Area (NEPVA). The latterresult suggests that in comparisonwith volcanic crises in other regions, during a future eruption of Vesuvius, there may not be enough time to educate thelarge number of people living near the volcano about how to appropriately respond. The inadequate risk education and preparedness of respondentsimplies that a strong effort is needed to improve communication strategies in order to facilitate successful evacuations. Therefore, it is important to takeadvantage of the present period of quiescence at Vesuvius to improve the accuracy of risk perception of youth in local communities.© 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords: risk perception; disasters; evacuation plan; Vesuvius; volcanic hazard

1. Introduction

Vesuvius has a history of explosive eruptions that have pro-ven to be deadly for those living near it. While stories about itsmost famous eruptions are still prevalent in popular culture, thelack of an eruption since 1944 has led to complacency amongresidents near the volcano (Dobran, 2006). Almost 600000people reside in the Red Zone, an approximately 250-km2 areaaround Vesuvius defined by the government's NationalEmergency Plan for the Vesuvian Area (NEPVA) as likely to

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Carlino).

0377-0273/$ - see front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.010

experience the most hazardous effects of pyroclastic flows andlahars in the event of a large subplinian eruption (ISTAT, 1991;Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Dipartimento delleProtezione Civile, 1995, 2001; ISTAT, 2001). According toNEPVA, an additional estimated 1100000 people could be affectedby heavy ash and lapilli fallout and lahars in the 1800-km2 YellowZone.

Past studies have shown that residents near Vesuvius do nothave high levels of perceived volcanic risk (Davis et al., 2005;Barberi et al.; 2006, Dobran, 2006). The fundamental equation ofvolcanic risk is defined as: risk=hazard×vulnerability, wherehazard refers to the probability of the occurrence of a specificvolcanic phenomenon, and vulnerability defines the degree of loss

Page 2: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

230 S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

to elements exposed to the hazard (e.g. humans, buildings,economic activities) (Blong, 2000). Risk perception is a subjectivejudgment that peoplemake about the characteristics and severity ofa risk (Paton et al., 2001).

The low-levels of perceived volcanic risk are significantbecause if a high intensity event were to occur, such as a volcaniceruption, people might adopt inadequate behaviors due to a lackof risk awareness and perception. This could lead to a seriouscrisis management problem (De La Cruz-Ryna et al., 2000).Further, the public's perception of risk is frequently found to bebiased, with people exaggerating the impact of large spectacularevents and underestimating that of pervasive or frequent ones(Slovic, 1987). Volcanic eruptions are generally less commonthan other natural hazards, therefore in most cases individualsseldom gain personal experience of such events. This can lead toan individual low level of perception of risk (Johnston andRonan, 2000). Periods of quiescence, which aremost common involcanically active regions, afford the best opportunity to de-velop mitigation strategies to maintain risk perception at aneffective level. Individuals who have an accurate perception oftheir vulnerability are more inclined to appropriately respondto warnings and undertake protective behaviors (Mileti andSorensen, 1990; Lindell, 1994).

On and around Vesuvius, the lack of land-use planning, alongwith volcanic quiescence since 1944, have led to extensiveurbanization on the volcano's slopes during the last 40 years(Cosenza, 1997; Dobran, 2006). A lack of adequate preparednessby local communities could render NEPVA's emergency plansineffective. The large number of people who would have to beevacuated from the Vesuvian area would make evacuating in atimely manner extremely challenging. In contrast, in slightlyurbanized areas close to volcanoes (i.e. villages with less than60000 inhabitants), the success of evacuation does not strictlydepend on the pre-disaster risk perception and education of localcommunities, as was illustrated by the 1995 Soufrière Hillsvolcanic crisis in Montserrat, West Indies (Buffonge, 1999;Kokelaar, 2002) and the 1991Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines(Johnston and Ronan, 2000). In both cases residents were notprepared to evacuate before eruptions, but evacuations werecarried out effectively.

Some studies have been conducted on the risk perception ofresidents near Vesuvius, but only few have focused solely on theperception of young people in the region. It is important to focus onyoung people's risk perception because themore a young person isaware of hazards and the realistic risk associated with them, themore potential there is for adults, particularly parents, to be bettereducated through the child sharing information with them (Ronanand Johnston, 2001). In addition, they have shown that youngpeople involved in hazard education programs demonstrate ap-propriate risk perceptions. Appropriate risk perception is con-sidered to be demonstrated through the increased knowledge ofprotective actions and more realistic risk perceptions, and anincreased ability to cope emotionally (Ronan and Johnston, 2001).Taking into account the above considerations, schools play a vitalrole in natural-hazard education by providing one of the mosteffective and least expensive methods to maintain appropriate riskperceptions (Johnston and Ronan, 2000).

This study examines 400 questionnaires administered tohigh-school level students living in three municipalities inthe Red Zone near Vesuvius. The questionnaire is designed toestimate their volcanic risk perception and volcanic-hazard ed-ucation, to highlight the level of preparedness and participationof youth in local communities with respect to volcanic risk. Thisis fundamental for the success of an evacuation, especially atVesuvius where a large number of people living around thevolcano probably will not become immediately aware of thesituation during a crisis. The results of the questionnaire arecompared with case studies in different volcanic areas to de-termine differences and similarities in behavior and perceptionduring potential volcanic crises.

2. Vesuvius background

2.1. Eruptive history

Vesuvius is located about 10 km south of the large city ofNaples, with a population of about 1000000 (Fig. 1). Vesuvius isa stratovolcano that reaches a height of 1281 m above sea level.Volcanic activity dates back to at least 400000 BP (Arnò et al.,1987). The earliest period of volcanic activity was dominated byfour plinian eruptions (“Pomici di Base,” 18300 BP; “PomiciVerdoline,” 16000 BP; “Mercato,” 8000 BP; and “Avellino,”3780 BP) (Rolandi et al., 1993). Vesuvius' most famous plinianeruption occurred in A.D. 79 and produced pyroclastic flows thatkilled approximately 2000 people. Volcanism between A.D. 79and 1631 included at least two subplinian eruptions and a seriesof small, low-energy interplinian eruptions that produced lavaflows and scoria deposits on the southern and western flanks ofthe volcano (Principe et al., 2004). A subplinian eruption oc-curred in A.D. 1631, after which there was predominantly open-conduit activity with eighteen distinguishable Stromboliancycles (Arnò et al., 1987). Most recently, effusive and explosiveactivity occurred in 1944, marking the volcano's transition to astate of closed-conduit activity. There has been no evidence ofrenewed volcanic activity at Vesuvius since the 1944 eruption(De Natale et al., 2001).

2.2. Eruption scenarios

While the historical eruptive activity of Vesuvius is wellknown, there is much debate about the scale and timing ofthe next eruption (Scandone et al., 1993; Lirer et al., 1997;Palumbo, 1999; Borgia et. al., 2004; Santacroce et al., 2005;Mastrolorenzo et al., 2006). Lirer et al. (1997) and Mastrolor-enzo et al. (2006) report that the worst-case scenario is possible,which would involve a large plinian eruption similar in scale tothe A.D. 79 and 3780 BP eruptions. NEPVA has adopted adifferent scenario, which is that the next eruption of Vesuviuswill be similar in scale to the subplinian A.D. 1631 eruption.Some scientists disagree with this assessment, for exampleBorgia et al. (2004) who reported that due to spreading pro-cesses at Vesuvius, the likelihood of a plinian eruption is re-duced, while an effusive eruptive scenario is more likely withassociated minor risk.

Page 3: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 1. Airphoto of Vesuvius. The extensive urbanization of the volcano's slopes is evident, particularly on the southwest sector (CGR-Parma, Programma it 2000).

231S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

The impact of future eruptive activity on populated areas willdiffer depending on the type of activity. If the worst-casescenario were to occur, 3000000 people living in and arounddowntown Naples would potentially be exposed to volcanichazards (Mastrolorenzo et al., 2006). If an eruptive scenariooccurred that was similar to that of the A.D. 79 eruption, about1200000 people would be impacted (Lirer et al., 1997). Lessdramatic activity that is similar to the A.D. 1631 eruption wouldimpact about 20% (50 km2) of the Red Zone with devastatingpyroclastic flows and 10–15% (about 270 km2) of the YellowZone with severe damage (Santacroce et al., 2005). Effusiveeruptive activity would impact communities very close to thevolcano, but would probably not be life threatening.

Forecasting when Vesuvius' next eruption will occur is evenmore complex due to the large number of options. Scientificstudies are mainly based on statistical and fractal elaboration.The results suggest that a plinian volcanic eruption (VEI=5)may occur around A.D. 3300, while a smaller plinian or vul-canian eruption (VEI=4) may occur in the 21st century(Palumbo, 1999; Luongo and Mazzarella, 2003).

While the exact timing and scale of the next eruption ofVesuvius is not known, scientists (i.e. Sparks, 2003) agreethat it would be very difficult to provide an accurate eruption

forecast in days or even weeks. This may prove problematicbecause NEPVA has based its evacuation plan on theassumption that scientists will provide warnings about animpending eruption at least two weeks in advance. Thepotentially short warning time, compounded by the largenumber of people who will need to be evacuated, necessitatesthe need for communities to be prepared to respond quicklyand appropriately to evacuation instructions.

2.3. Previous studies about risk perception at Vesuvius

Volcanic risk perception studies are important because theyprovide information about the level of preparedness of at-riskcommunities for possible impending eruptions. The majority ofstudies on the public's volcanic-hazard related risk perceptionhave been conducted in the United States, including at MountSt. Helens (Perry and Green, 1983; Saarinen and Sell, 1985;Perry and Lindell, 1990), Mount Shasta (Perry, 1990), and atMauna Loa and Hualalai (Gregg et al., 2004). A large number ofstudies have also been conducted in New Zealand, including atRuapehu and Egmont (Johnston et al., 1999; Miller et al., 1999;Becker et al., 2001). Fewer studies have been performed aboutvolcanoes on the Caribbean Island of Martinique (D'Ercole

Page 4: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

232 S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

et al., 1995), in Greece (Dominney-Howe and Minos-Minopoulos, 2004) and in Japan (Yoshii, 1992).

Several studies have been conducted on the risk perceptionof residents living near Vesuvius in recent time (Vesuvius, 2000;Davis et al., 2005; Barberi et al., 2006; Dobran, 2006). Thesestudies provide valuable information that is used as backgroundfor this study. In particular Davis et al. (2005), explored thevolcanic risk perception of adult residents of the Red Zone andthe Yellow Zone around Vesuvius. They found that althoughthere is a high probability of an eruption within the next 5 yearsthat could impact the Yellow Zone, most Yellow Zone residentsconsidered the likelihood very low that their towns would beseriously affected by an eruption because of the distance of theircities from the volcano. Even though residents of the Red Zoneare closer to Vesuvius (within 7–8 km), most people consideredvolcanic risk as a minor problem compared to the ‘everyday’problems associated with public services, traffic, crowding,crime and unemployment. Further, despite a great deal of pub-licity about NEPVA's evacuation plans during the past 10 years,the Red Zone residents expressed little faith in the government'sability to protect them. Due to the similar perceptions in bothzones, this study only focuses on residents in the Red Zone.

A study about volcanic risk perception was conducted byDobran (2006) that was focused on school children and adults inthe Vesuvian area as part of the VESUVIUS 2000 project, whichaims to develop volcanic risk reduction guidelines based oninterdisciplinary scientific approaches. The study concluded thateducation about volcanic eruptions and their associated risks canincrease the ability of individuals to appropriately prepare for apossible eruption, supplanting feelings of complacency, falsesecurity, and reluctance to evacuate. Based on the result ofDobran's (2006) work, this study focuses in more depth oncontrasting the results from students who have and have notparticipated in volcanic-hazard education programs.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and setting

The Vesuvian area is divided into 18 municipalities (Fig. 2)with a population of about 600000 people living in a 228 km2

area (ISTAT, 1991, 2001). Ten of the 18 municipalities nearVesuvius were invited to participate in the survey and sixaccepted the invitation, but only three could facilitate the surveyin a timely manner. The survey was conducted in a high schoolin each of the three municipalities (Fig. 2); one municipalityis in the northeast sector in San Giuseppe Vesuviano (24689inhabitants), and two are in the southwest sector in Portici(60068 inhabitants) and Torre del Greco (90465 inhabitants).Portici and Torre del Greco are the most populated munici-palities near Vesuvius, they are in the Red Zone, and bothsuffered extensive damage during Vesuvius' last eruptive cyclein 1631–1944 (Principe et al., 2004). While San GiuseppeVesuviano is also located in the Red Zone, it has been protectedfrom past lava flows and other volcanic activity, due to themorphology of the area. The municipalities have similar demo-graphics, and cultural and ethnic backgrounds. In general, the

Vesuvian area has many low-income families (ISTAT, 2001).In all 18 municipalities, industry, manufacturing, services andcommerce employ the majority of the population (73%), fol-lowed by public administration and education (21%), and agri-culture and fishing (6%). Three percent of the population has acollege degree, 17.8% has a secondary school diploma, 31.8%graduated from intermediate schools, 29.6% completed a pri-mary school education, 14% did not complete primary school,and 3.3% are illiterate (ISTAT, 1991).

Questionnaires were submitted to 400 high-school studentsin three different schools during May 2006. Some of thestudents had participated in volcanic risk education programs intheir high schools. One survey was administered at a school perday, so the entire distribution of the surveys took three days.There were 100 respondents from San Giuseppe Vesuviano(2893 high-school aged residents), 120 respondents from Portici(4367 high-school aged residents), and 180 respondents fromTorre del Greco (8444 high-school aged residents). The surveyswere administered in similar physical settings at each school;teachers distributed the questionnaires and were present whilethe students answered them, no assistance was given to thestudents while they worked on the questionnaires, the studentswere aware that the questionnaire was about volcanic riskperception and received information about the goal of thesurvey, and their answers were anonymous. After the studentscompleted the questionnaires, the researchers entered theclassroom and retrieved the questionnaires. All of thedistributed surveys were returned and they were all completeand usable, representing a 100% response rate. The total timenecessary to administer each survey was approximately 35 min.The participants ranged in age from 13–19 (high school in Italylasts for 5 years, with many students reaching their 19thbirthday before graduating), with a mean age of 15.6 years old(sd=0.784). The respondents' genders were 56.1% female and43.9% male, while the gender of high-school aged residents ofthe municipalities was 49.7% female and 50.3% male.

3.2. Survey material

The questionnaire was composed of 25 multiple choicequestions. It was adapted in part from a questionnaire developedfor studies of volcanic-hazard risk perception in New Zealand.These studies involved high-school level students living inmunicipalities with low population density near a volcano witha similar eruptive style as Vesuvius (Blong, 2000; Johnston andRonan, 2000). The questionnaire focuses on four main topics:

Knowledge of Vesuvius' eruptive history and volcanicprocesses—Questionswere asked in order to test the effectivenessof scholastic science programs and specific volcanic risk educationprograms. This is important because this knowledge is funda-mental for the identification of hazards associated with eruptions.

Perception of the volcanic environment—This is importantbecause it represents personal experiences which can contributeto maintaining awareness of living in a dangerous area.

Perception of risk—Questions were asked about riskperception to explore the perceived personal vulnerability tovolcanic hazards, and the anxiety about or fear of the hazard.

Page 5: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 2. Sketch of municipalities of the Vesuvian area (modified by Dobran, 2006).

233S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

Knowledge of evacuation planning—This was asked aboutin order to evaluate the students' confidence in the govern-ment's level of preparedness and their ability to provide accurateinformation about potential eruptions (trust in officials). Further,the knowledge of evacuation planning correlates with localcommunity's ability to appropriately respond to warnings.

The questions focused on specific issues related to a possibleeruption of Vesuvius and did not consider the other problemsresidents commonly face living in the Vesuvian area, includinga high crime rate, delinquency, heavy traffic, low-quality publicservices, and heavy pollution. These issues cause a low qualityof life that local, regional, and national governments have found

Fig. 3. Response to question: How many plinian eruptions

difficult to improve. This point is illustrated by a recent study byDavis et al. (2005) that concluded that with respect to the mostfrequently mentioned community problems of the Vesuvianarea, only 7% of residents in the Red Zone (n=286 respondents)and 0% in the Yellow Zone (n=80 respondents) consider therisk of an eruption at Vesuvius a major problem. The majority ofthose interviewed declared that crime, delinquency, traffic,public services, and pollution were their main problems. Thegoal of this study is to determine the level of preparedness ofstudents living near Vesuvius, so the questionnaire only focuseson issues related to volcanic risk and not the other problemsresidents face in the region. Demographic information was also

have occurred at Vesuvius during the last 25000 years?

Page 6: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 4. Response to question: At what distance from the main vent can damage and fatalities be caused by an high-energy eruption (plinian) of Vesuvius?

234 S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

requested about the students' age, gender, and municipality ofresidence.

4. Results

4.1. Knowledge of Vesuvius' eruptive history and volcanicprocesses

Eighty-eight percent of the respondents' state that they knowthe eruptive history of Vesuvius and 74% state that they are ableto recognize the difference between effusive and explosiveeruptions. When asked “How many plinian eruptions has Vesu-

Fig. 5. Histogram showing the response to the question: Put the following processdangerous to the people living near the volcano: Lava flow, pyroclastic flow, pyroc

vius experienced?”, 43% of respondents correctly chose fourplinian eruptions, while the rest mainly are divided into anoverestimate of N4 (20%) and an underestimate of b4 (37%)(Fig. 3). A majority of the students (70%) did not know whyhighly explosive eruptions are named plinian. They were askedto estimate “At what maximum distance from the main vent cana high-energy eruption (plinian) cause damages and fatalities?”.The respondents provided appropriate estimates, with 57%stating that the damage can impact distances from at least 10 kmto more than 20 km (Fig. 4).

When asked about their knowledge of volcanic processes, therespondents state that the most dangerous processes that would

es that could occur during an eruption at Vesuvius in order from most to leastlastic fall, gas emission, earthquake, tsunami, and lahar.

Page 7: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 6. Response to question: How do you perceive the volcanic environment?

235S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

occur should Vesuvius reawaken are gas emissions followed indecreasing order of likelihood by tsunamis, earthquakes, lahars,pyroclastic flows, pyroclastic falls, and lava (Fig. 5).

4.2. Perception of the volcanic environment

In regard to the perception of the volcanic environment,61% of respondents consider their municipality a “hostileplace to live,” while a surprising 30% think that a volcanicenvironment is a “quite natural environment to live in forever”(Fig. 6).

The main reasons that respondents are aware that they areliving in a dangerous volcanic area is the daily remindersof the devastating effects of past eruptions, like recent histo-rical A.D. 1631–1944 lava flows, the ubiquitous presence ofvolcanic features built atop lava flows, and the numerousancient Roman ruins (e.g. Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia) in themiddle of the modern cities (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Response to the question: What makes

4.3. Perception of risk

Although a high percentage of respondents (97%) areconscious of living in an area classified as having a highvolcanic risk, only 55% declare that they know the meaning ofvolcanic risk. In addition, a majority of students (78%) knowthat their municipalities have experienced damage and injuriesdue to previous eruptions.

One question was asked in order to try and understand howthe respondents feel about the likelihood of future eruptions. Amajority of respondents said they feel panic (42%) when theyimagine a future eruption occurring at Vesuvius, while 21%reported feeling an inability to act, 18% felt anxiety, 10% feltfear, and 4% felt indifference (Fig. 8).

When asked “Which category of risk takers are you in?”, 39%of the students responded that they are “concerned and thinkingthat urgent actions are necessary to reduce the risk in theVesuvian area”, 27% feel they are fatalist and hope for the best,

you the most concerned about Vesuvius?

Page 8: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 8. Response to question: What is your feeling if you imagine the likelihood of future eruptions at Vesuvius?

236 S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

16% trust in local institutions and think that everything will beOK, while only 6% consider themselves self-sufficient (Fig. 9).

Important results were revealed from questions about thewillingness of respondents to move to “safer” areas if they could.Forty-four percent of respondents would move elsewhere, 40%declare that they don't know, and 16% are not willing to relocateto other areas.

4.4. Knowledge of evacuation planning

When asked about who will provide information in case ofan eruption, 30% of participants think that scientific authoritieswill supply information, while about 34% do not distinguishbetween the mass media, Civil Protection, or scientific au-thorities (Fig. 10). Many students seem to trust scientific studies

Fig. 9. Response to question: Which c

about the future behavior of Vesuvius. Sixty four percent thinkscientists will be able to forecast a future eruption of Vesuvius,27% are not able to judge this issue, while only 8% believescientists will not be able to forecast an eruption.

Some failings of the volcanic risk education of many stu-dents appear to be their apparent lack of knowledge aboutNEPVA and confusion about how to behave during a volcaniccrisis. Thirty-two percent of respondents feel that they don'thave a sufficient level of training to face an emergency(Fig. 11). When asked about NEPVA, 62% of respondentsstate that they have heard of NEPVA, but 60% know verylittle about what NEPVA does, and 23% don't know anythingat all about it.

When asked about the percentage of the population that will beable to leave the Red Zone during an eruption, the majority

ategory of risk takers are you in?

Page 9: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 10. Response to question: Who will provide information during a volcanic emergency?

237S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

of students declare that no more than 50% of the population willbe able to evacuate, 14% estimate that less than 10%will succeed,and only 2% of respondents think that everyone will be able toevacuate (Fig. 12). This question was asked because it providesinformation about the degree of trust the students have in officialsto organize the evacuation. It is interesting to note what outcomesthe students thinkwill influence the success of an evacuation oncea warning is broadcast (Fig. 13). Surprisingly, only 3% ofrespondents consider the policy of the Central Government as amain contributor. Eight percent favored assistance from friendsand parents, 27% level of cooperation between officials, 23% riskeducation, 22% level of quality of facilities necessary for theevacuation, and 17% assistance provided by other regions andcountries. Lastly, many students preferred returning to their

Fig. 11. Response to question: What is your level of train

municipality after a hypothetical large eruption (34%), 24%would not return and 42% are undecided (Fig. 14).

5. Discussion

5.1. Knowledge of Vesuvius' eruptive history and volcanicprocesses

The questionnaire results reveal that the respondents have afairly good knowledge of the volcanic history of Vesuvius, butthey are not able to provide detailed information about volcanicprocesses. The majority were able to answer correctly questionsabout the number of plinian eruptions atVesuvius and the area thatwill be impacted by a high-energy eruption. This illustrates the

ing for dealing with an eruption-related emergency?

Page 10: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 12. Response to question: What percentage of the population do you think will be able to evacuate the red zone in case of an eruption?

238 S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

relatively good knowledge of Vesuvius' eruptive history (Figs. 3and 4). The fact that the majority of answers were incorrect toquestions about the most dangerous volcanic phenomena, revealsa lack of knowledge about volcanic processes (Fig. 5). It isremarkable that 49% of respondents consider gas emissions themost dangerous phenomena. The students believe volcanic gases,and the associated risk of injuries and fatalities, are dangerousbut they seem less aware of the main physical processes (i.e.pyroclastic flows and surges) associated with high-energy gasreleases. Despite the fact that during the past 25000 yearsVesuvius has had four major plinian eruptions that have produceddevastating pyroclastic flows (Luongo et. al., 2003), 26.5% ofrespondents rated pyroclastic flows as the fourth most dangeroushazard and only 3.2% rated them as the most dangerous.

Fig. 13. Response to question: The outcome of an evacuation will depend

It is even more surprising that 29% of the students ratedtsunamis as the second most dangerous hazard associated witheruptions at Vesuvius, despite the fact that no seriously dam-aging volcano-related tsunami has been recorded in theTyrrhenian basin in historical time. The respondents may havestressed the importance of tsunami hazards following heavyexposure to the shocking stories and images provided by themedia after the 26 December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Oceankilled over 200000 people. Their perceptions may also havebeen affected by recurrent stories in the media arguing that therewas a high likelihood of a tsunami occurring in the Tyrrhenianbasin in the future. Such information has produced the erro-neous idea that similar catastrophic disasters could also occur inItaly as a consequence of eruptions at submarine volcanoes,

on which of the following once an eruption warning is broadcasted?

Page 11: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

Fig. 14. Response to question: Would you return to your municipality to live after an hypothetical large eruption of Vesuvius?

239S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

such as Vavilov and Marsili, or at one of several active volcanicedifices close to the Tyrrhenian cost line.

Students' inaccurate understanding of the danger posed byvolcano-related hazards appears to be a consequence of insuf-ficient scientific information about volcanic processes providedin the school programs. Scientific information needs to beenhanced using more appropriate technical expressions to ex-plain different volcanic processes and related hazards. It is alsoclear that rumors and misinformation may also contribute to thestudents' inaccurate hazard perceptions. This situation may beexacerbated during an eruption because it is common forincorrect information to be spread during emergencies, inparticular the media may provide misinformation to a largenumber of people if not appropriately supported by scientists(Blong, 1984).

5.2. Perception of the volcanic environment

It is surprising that 30% of students think that a volcanicenvironment is a “quite natural environment to live in forever.”This result is possibly due to the lack of knowledge of volcanicmorphology, processes, and structures as is illustrated by thelarge number of respondents who were unable to recognize alateral vent, despite the fact that it should be easily identifiablefrom a glance.

Another important observation comes from the questionabout the respondents' awareness of the dangerousness of thearea where they live (Fig. 7). Almost half of respondents (45%)declare that thinking about “the volcanic scenario” makes themrealize the dangerous nature of Vesuvius. This finding is inter-esting because while “social sources,” such as informationprovided by the media and scientists, are potential policy tools,“personal experience,” is not (Johnston et al., 1999). Takingthese responses into consideration, we would expect that 45% ofrespondents would have a fairly constant level of risk perceptionbecause of the daily view of the volcano they have. Further, theabove statements also reveal that respondents are aware of thevolcanic landscape, but they are not educated about specific

volcanic structures such as lateral vents, which are evidence ofthe frequent activity of Vesuvius in the past 400 years.

5.3. Perception of risk

Previous studies of volcanic risk perception at volcanoes inHawaii (USA) have shown that perceived risk is linked to theproximity of individuals to the hazard source and is correlatedwith the frequency of eruptions (Blong, 1984; Gregg et al.,2004). Even so, in Hawaii, despite the frequent activity ofMauna Loa and generally the high risk perception of the public,about 10% of the population of the town of Kona are unawarethat the volcano can erupt again (Gregg et al., 2004). Riskperception studies performed in relation to the Mount St. Helens18 May 1980 eruption, revealed that although the volcano hashad relatively large-scale eruptions, residents near the volcanohad a low risk perception because the hazard occurs infre-quently, unlike in Hawaii (Blong, 1984). In light of these data, itis not surprising that volcanic risk perception is very weak orabsent for populations living close to volcanoes that have longperiods of quiescence. The over 60 years of quiescence atVesuvius has led to a complacent society near the volcano, butvarious studies have shown that focused education programscan increase individuals' risk perception (Johnston and Ronan,2000; Perry and Hirose, 1991).

Almost all of the respondents (97%), are aware that theylive in an area classified as having a high volcanic risk and 61%of them consider the volcanic environment a “hostile place tolive and from which, due to future eruptions, they could also beobliged to leave” (Fig. 6). This response indicates thatstudents' knowledge of the potential volcanic hazard in theregion may lead them to reverse the trend observed in the last60 years of Neapolitans migrating closer to the slopes ofVesuvius. It is important to note that middle-aged people usu-ally have a more accurate perception of risk than youngerpeople (Blong, 1984), so the education the students havereceived may lead them to have even more accurate risk per-ceptions as they age.

Page 12: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

240 S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

Forty-six percent of respondents declare that they are involvedin volcanic risk education programs; this is an encouraging result ifwe consider that in Kona, Hawaii, where there is a high frequencyof eruptions, about 50% of those interviewed (n=462) had beeninvolved in a hazard education program (Gregg et al., 2004).

The way people behave during an eruption strongly affectsthe efficiency of an evacuation. The more calm people are, theeasier it is to evacuate them. Most respondents reported thatthey feel a sense of panic when they think about a futureeruption at Vesuvius (42%). According to Wenger et al. (1975),panic is an extreme agitated behavior that increases the dangertoward those at risk and others, and it is often observed duringthe occurrence of a natural disaster. Conversely, other authorsfind that panic does not necessarily represent “terror, confusion,and irrational behavior” (Goldenson, 1984; Johnson, 1987).Different types of behavior have been witnessed during naturaldisasters in Italy. Agitated behavior was observed when an M6.8 earthquake in 1980 affected the Basilicata and CampaniaRegions (Alexander, 1990), whereas some calmer responseswere described during historical eruptions of Vesuvius. Perret(1924) reported that the behavior of Neapolitans during the1906 Vesuvius eruption, was admirable: “….greater patience,resignation and savoir faire could hardly have been expected ofany race.” Similar behavior was observed during the 1944eruption, when a lava flow destroyed San Sebastiano al Vesuvioand Massa di Somma (Pesce and Rolandi, 2000). During thiseruption, instead of behaving in an agitated manner, peoplecalmly invoked the patron saint of the city of Naples (SanGennaro) in the hopes of stopping the lava flow. This attitude ofNeapolitans, often observed in the past and reported by nu-merous chronicles (Dobran, 2006), is typical of people whobelieve that their lives are controlled externally (i.e. fatalists).This seems to be in part supported by the number of respondents(27%) who describe themselves as “fatalist” when asked whatcategory of risk takers they categorize themselves as.

Despite the strong “sense of place” or “home” that Nea-politans have shown throughout history, a significant percentageof respondents (44%) seem to be willing to move to other areasto guarantee their own security. On the other hand, 40% ofrespondents declare that they don't know if they are ready tomove. These statements may be linked to different factors (i.e.individual perception of the degree of hazard and attendant risks,individual level of fear, cultural level, economic and socialfactors, advances toward a more contemporary society) (Bryant,2005). We think that in the Vesuvius area, the individual choicesof the respondents to move or not is strongly related to economicand social factors. Individuals and families are often constrainedto their residences by their jobs, the difficulty of finding othersresidences, and by the high social and economic costs associatedwith relocating to nearby communities with lower volcanic risk.This should be taken into account by Civil Protection and otherofficials whose goal will be to facilitate the relocation of peoplewilling to move, and also to reduce the risk of people who do notrelocate. The former solution has been adopted by the “VesuVia”program (2003), which intends to reduce the population of theRed Zone by providing economic incentives of 30000 Euro perfamily to move to a safer location (Arie, 2003). Unfortunately,

the program has had very limited success due to economic andsocial circumstances that have prevented people living nearVesuvius from relocating to safer zones (McGuire, 2003). Theresults from our survey suggest that perhaps the nextgeneration will be more willing to relocate before an eruption,although it must be noted that the students' risk perception maychange as they age and become more invested in their townsand homes.

Residents will also face the decision of whether or not toreturn to their homes after an eruption. When considering thepost-eruptive phase, a significant percentage of respondents(34%) declare that they would return to their municipalities aftera large eruption. A recent study shows that people who evacua-ted from the town of Baños due to an eruption of Tungurahuavolcano in Ecuador in 1999, returned to the high risk area with alow level of concern and anxiety about future eruptions (Laneet al., 2004). Although a high percentage of respondents declarefear, panic and anxiety (70%), only 24% of students state thatthey would not be willing to return after a large eruption atVesuvius. Historical cases have shown that as more peoplereturn to their communities there is an increase in perceived riskdue to their earlier eruptive experience (Lane et al., 2004).

5.4. Knowledge of evacuation planning

A reliable information source is of fundamental importance tothe success of an emergency plan. Once the critical conditionsare defined, the consensus of scientists and a scientificcommittee in charge must be shared with officials and localcommunities in a clear and unambiguous manner (De La Cruz-Ryna et al., 2000). The students declared that they would preferto receive information during a volcanic crisis from: scientificauthorities (30%), the mass media (radio and television) (21%),Civil Protection (15%) andmost do not have a preference (34%).Comparing these results with those obtained from adults inHawaii (Gregg et al., 2004), a similar percentage of Konainhabitants prefer to receive information from scientific au-thorities (34.5%), while a larger percentage of interviewees(58.4%) prefer the mass media. In a smaller community likeSantorini island in Greece, the majority of residents believe thatduring an eruption the information will be provided by theMayor (23%), and fewer consider the government (11%) andpolice (11%) as a potential source, while only a small number ofrespondents declare the Army (8%) and scientists (3%) as apreferred supplier of information (Dominney-Hows and Minos-Minoupolus, 2004).

The respondents to our survey give the impression of trustingscientists more than the mass media or Civil Protection. Asimilar situation was observed during the 1995 Soufrière Hillsvolcanic crisis in Montserrat in the West Indies. In fact, duringthe early phases of the eruption scientists from the MontserratVolcano Observatory (MVO) were occasionally interviewed bythe media, causing confusion between the information theyprovided and other information supplied by government of-ficials and Emergency Operations Centre staff. From October1995 onwards there was a shift in the method of relayinginformation because the MVO scientists had wider exposure

Page 13: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

241S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

through Radio Montserrat and Montserrat Community TV.Consequently, many facts related to the volcanic phenomena ingeneral and in particular to the behavior of Soufrière Hillsactivity were openly explained and discussed with greater par-ticipation by the public than prior to October 1995 (Buffonge,1999; Clay et al., 1999; Aspinall et al., 2002; Kokelaar, 2002).Subsequently, by June 1997 many residents of Montserrat werefollowing the scientists' example rather than the official guid-ance (Loughlin et al., 2002). The possibility of this type of resultmust be taken into account by officials when trying to dis-seminate information during a volcanic crisis.

The lack of understanding or trust between at-risk commu-nities, authorities, and scientists can lead to disasters as was thecase with the failed warning that occurred during the 1985eruption of Nevado del Ruiz in Colombia which devastated thecity of Armero. Despite warnings provided by scientists, at thetime of the eruption emergency responders did not know how toappropriately disseminate the information to at-risk commu-nities. The lack of a warning system and tested communicationbetween government, scientists, and the local communities,along with community members' fear of government officialswere the main reasons for the failure of the warning and eva-cuation. As a consequence, more than 20000 people were killedwhen lahars inundated the city of Armero (Johnston and Ronan,2000).

The trust that the respondents have in scientists is furtherconfirmed by the statement that 64% of respondents think thatscientists will be able to forecast a future eruption of Vesuvius.While trust in scientists is a positive thing, their responsesdemonstrate that students are not taught about the uncertaintiesrelated to volcanic forecasts. They are not aware that one of themain limits of volcanology is the difficulty of precisely fore-casting volcanic eruptions. The problem of forecasting whenand how Vesuvius will erupt is still a matter of debate, as isdemonstrated by the diverging opinions of individual scientistswho are trying to forecast Vesuvius' eruptions (Lirer et al.,1997; Palumbo, 1999; Borgia et. al., 2004; Santacroce et al.,2005; Mastrolorenzo et al., 2006). For this reason, volcanic riskeducation needs to take into account the uncertainty offorecasting an eruption and the related likelihood of providingfalse alarms. This may produce a higher tolerance of Vesuvius'volcanic risk, providing scientists with some extra time to betterstudy the behavior of the volcano and to produce an appropriateeruption forecast. On the contrary, low tolerance of risk maypush scientists into quickly issuing inappropriate forecasts,supported by incomplete data, and therefore raising the chanceof false alarms (Newhall, 2000). The experiences of the MVOteam during the 1995–1997 Soufrière Hills eruption have alsoshown that the inability of scientists to predict the time andscale of specific volcanic phenomena can frustrate some people,possibly causing them to make, and act upon, their own as-sessments (Loughlin et al., 2002).

The respondents are aware that a successful evacuationdepends on four main elements: cooperation between officials,scientific authorities, and at-risk populations; risk education ofat-risk populations; high-quality evacuation facilities; andassistance provided by other regions and countries (Fig. 13).

These outcomes are necessary for the successful evacuation ofthe more than 600000 people living on Vesuvius' flanks, inparticular volcanic risk education and disaster preparedness oflocal communities could produce a better response during anemergency (Paton et al., 2001). The eruptions of Pinatubo in1991 and Soufriere Hills in 1995 are examples of how at-riskcommunities can prepare for disasters in a very short time (days,months). Thousands of lives were saved during the Pinatuboeruption, despite the long quiescence of the volcano and the lackof emergency preparedness of the people, because scientistswere able to provide timely warnings to local communities(Ewert and Newhall, 1991). Similarly, about 10000 people weregradually evacuated during the volcanic crisis at Soufrière Hills(Kokelaar, 2002). These evacuations were successful, but it isimportant to note that only tens of thousands of people wereinvolved. At Vesuvius, the population involved in the evacua-tion will be one or two orders of magnitude greater, which maynecessitate the adoption of a different strategy in order to guar-antee the safety of local communities in the event of an eruption.

6. Conclusions

The results suggest that, despite 60 years of quiescence atVesuvius, the interviewed students living in three municipalitiesin the Red Zone have relatively appropriate volcanic risk per-ception. This may be attributable to the volcanic risk edu-cation programs provided to many of the students by their highschools. There were no differences in risk perception among therespondents in the three different municipalities. The respon-dents seem to have a fairly good understanding of the eruptivehistory of Vesuvius, while they were less knowledgeable aboutvolcanic processes and knew very little about NEPVA. Further,when comparing the responses from students who had par-ticipated in risk education programs (46%) with those who hadnot, we found that risk education program participants havemore awareness of risk and reduced hazard-related fears. Thefindings of this study strongly support the value of hazardeducation for young people. This is also supported by previouspublic education and awareness programs, such as a programimplemented by the Taraki Regional Council during 1995–1997 in New Zealand. After this program, the level of aware-ness about volcanic hazards in the Taraki region increased from37% to 56% (Johnston and Ronan, 2000).

The observed lack of knowledge about volcanic processescould also lead to low volcanic risk perception. Students needto become more familiar with scientific definitions of volcanicprocesses in order to better understand the potentially deadlyhazards that could be associated with a future eruption ofVesuvius. The trust the respondents have in the scientists'ability to forecast an eruption provides a great opportunity toimplement communication between volcanologists and localcommunities. This is an important issue because risk under-standing, risk perception, and consequential behaviors of peopleduring an emergency, are strictly dependent on the quality of thescientific and technical information provided to local commu-nities. The lack of effective communication between officials,scientists, and communities can produce social amplification or

Page 14: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

242 S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

attenuation of risk with potentially dangerous effects onevacuation decisions (Johnston and Ronan, 2000).

The lack of knowledge about NEPVA is a sign of the absence ofwell-tested communication strategies and effective informationdissemination in the study area. This lack of knowledge meansthere is little interest in participating in risk-reduction activities.This was illustrated during the recent “Major EmergencySIMulation EXercise,” during 17–22 October 2006 at Vesuvius(MESIMEX, 2006). About 2000 people living in the Red Zonetook part in the event, with great interest and participation by thescientific community and officials, but only weak participation bylocal communities. More effective organization and educationshould be used for future simulations to avoid similar modestparticipation by at-risk communities in the future.

The present knowledge of the respondents about NEPVA,volcanic risk, eruption forecasts, and methods of disseminatinginformation during an emergency seems to be inadequate foran efficient evacuation. For this reason, the information thatNEPVA and risk education programs provide must be shared farenough in advance in order to improve disaster preparedness.In the Vesuvian area, this is a long-term goal considering thecomplexity of the social organization and the large number ofpeople exposed to volcanic risk.We think that the option of tryingto mitigate the impact of an eruption during an ongoing volcaniccrisis, as was done during eruptions at Pinatubo and SoufrièreHills, will not work at Vesuvius due to the large number of peoplewho will need to be evacuated. At Vesuvius, residents must beginto prepare for possible evacuations during quiescent periods. Inthe absence of adequate preparedness measures, an evacuationcould become “enforced” or even worse, a “failure.”

Emergency planners have a good opportunity to enhance therisk perception of vulnerable communities while Vesuvius isquiescent and information can be shared in a calm controlledmanner. Furthermore, in the Vesuvius area, where a complexsocial situation exists (i.e. high level of urbanization, highpopulation density, elevated rates of crime and delinquency,pollution, and very different cultural background of local com-munities), the risk perception must be enhanced using a multi-disciplinary approach. To increase the volcanic risk perception ofall members of society new resources and methods of dis-semination will be necessary, including permanent and temporaryexhibits, regular workshops for educators, public talks,and dissemination of news and printed materials concerningvolcanic hazards at Vesuvius. Such goals must involve scientists,researchers, officials, teachers, practitioners, and local commu-nities. In addition, scientists should make an effort to improve thepublic's knowledge of Vesuvius' volcanic hazards in order toenhance the risk awareness of local communities. Educatingyoung people about volcanic risk is of particular importancebecause they are the next wave of decision makers and what theyare taught todaymay influence the choices theymake in the future.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to G. Tobin and an anonymous reviewerfor their critical reviews, also thanks to the editors of thisvolume for their suggestions. We are grateful to Paula Gori from

the U.S. Geological Survey, and Professor Giuseppina KysarMattietti from George Mason University, for their constructivereviews, which greatly improved the manuscript.

We would like to give special thanks to Professor C. Pellegrino(Liceo Classico “Gaetano De Bottis”—Torre del Greco, Naples),Professor M. Fraissinet (ITC “Carlo Levi” of Portici, Naples)and Professor I. Marone (ITGC “Annibale Giordano”—S. Giuseppe Vesuviano Naples) for their collaboration duringthe submission of the questionnaires in the schools.We alsowouldlike to thank the students for their participation in this study andthe leaders and administration of the above schools for their usefulsupport. This work was supported by Project PON-S.I.MON.A (funded to G. De Natale INGV-OV), which was awarded to theINGVauthors.

References

Arie, S., 2003. Italy ready to pay to clear slopes of volcano. Guardian unlimited:Special Reports. URL:http://www.guardian.co.uk.

Alexander, D., 1990. Behaviour during earthquakes: a southern Italian example.International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 8 (1), 5–29.

Arnò, V., Principe, C., Rosi, M., Santacroce, R., Sbrana, A., Sheridan, M.F.,1987. Eruptive history. In: Santacroce, R. (Ed.), Somma- Vesuvius. CNR,vol. 114. Quaderni della Ricerca Scientifica, Rome, pp. 53–103.

Aspinall, W.P., Loughlin, S.C., Michael, F.V., Miller, A.D., Norton, G.E.,Rowley, K.C., Sparks, R.S., Young, S.R., 2002. The MontserratVolcano Observatory: its evolution, organization, role and activities.In: Druitt, T.H., Kokelaar, B.P. (Eds.), The Eruption of Soufrière HillsVolcano, Montserrat from 1995 to 1999. Geol. Soc. London, Memoirs,vol. 21, pp. 71–91.

Barberi, F., Davis, M.S., Isaia, R., Macedonio, G., Nave, R., Ricci, T., 2006.Volcanic risk perception at Vesuvius and Phlegrean Fields (Naples, Italy).Abstract Cities on Volcanoes 4 23–27 January 2006 Quito Ecuador.

Becker, J., Smith, R., Hohnston, D., Munro, A., 2001. Effects of the 1995–1996Ruapehu eruptions on communities in central North Island, New Zealand,and people's perceptions of volcanic hazards after the event. AustralasianJournal of Disaster and Trauma Studies vol. 2001-1. URL:http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2001-1/becker.htm.

Blong, R.J., 1984. Social aspect of volcanic eruptions. Volcanic Hazards, ASourcebook on the Effect of Eruptions. Academic Press, pp. 132–186.

Blong, R.J., 2000.Volcanic hazards and riskmanagement. In: Sigurdsson, H. (Ed.),Encyclopedia of Volcanoes. Academic Press, pp. 1215–1240.

Borgia, A., Solaro, G., Tizzani, P., Luongo, G., de Vries, B.V.W., Fusi, N., 2004.Spreading of Somma-Vesuvio volcanic complex: is the hazard for plinianeruption being reduced? Geophysical Research Abstracts 6, 01168.

Bryant, E., 2005. Personal and group response to hazards, Natural Hazards,second ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 273–287.

Buffonge, C., 1999. Volcano! A Chronicle of Montserrat's Volcanic ExperienceDuring 1995 and1996.Books 1 and2Combined edition. Published by the author.

Clay, E., Barrow, C., Benson, C., Dempster, J., Kokelaar, P., Pillai, N., Seaman,J., 1999. An evaluation of HMG's response to the Montserrat volcanicemergency. Department for International Development Report EV635(2 vols) 1, 2 vol. 1–86, 1–182.

Cosenza, G., 1997. Area Vesuviana: metastasi di un territorio. In: Luongo, G.(Ed.), Mons Vesuvius. Fiorentino Press, Napoli, pp. 337–353.

Davis, S.M., Ricci, T., Mitchell, L.M., 2005. Perception of risk for volcanichazards at Vesuvio and Etna, Italy. The Australasian Journal of Disaster andTrauma Studies (ISSN: 1174-4707) 2005-1.

De La Cruz-Ryna, S., Meli, P.R., Quaas, W.R., 2000. Volcanic crisesmanagement. In: Sigurdsson, H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Volcanoes.Academic Press, pp. 1199–1214.

De Natale, G., Troise, C., Pingue, F., De Gori, P., Chiarabba, C., 2001. Structureand dynamics of the Somma-Vesuvius volcanic complex. Mineralogy andPetrology 73, 5–22.

Page 15: Research paper Volcanic risk perception of young …raman/papers2/CarlinoVesuvPercep.pdfResearch paper Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons

243S. Carlino et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (2008) 229–243

Dobran, F., 2006. Vesuvius 2000: toward security and prosperity under theshadow of Vesuvius. In: Dobran, F. (Ed.), Vesuvius Education, Security andProsperity Educazione Sicurezza Prosperità. Elsevier, pp. 3–69.

Dominney-Hows, D., Minos-Minopoulos, D., 2004. Perception of hazard andrisk on Santorini. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 137,285–310.

D'Ercole, R., Rancon, J.-P., Lesales, T., 1995. Living close to an active volcano:popular hazard perception in three communities of North Martinique (F.W.I.),IUGGXXIGeneral AssemblyAbstract, Boulder, Colorado, July 2–4th, p. B. 20.

Ewert, J.W., Newhall, C.N., 1991. Volcanic Crisis in the Philippines: The 1991Eruption of Mount Pinatubo. USGS open file.

Gregg, C.E., Houghton, B.F., Johnston, D.M., Paton, D., Swanson, D.A., 2004.The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa andHualalai volcanoes, Hawai'i. Journal of Volcanology and GeothermalResearch 130, 179–196.

Goldenson, Robert M., 1984. Longman Dictionary of Psychology and Psychiatry.Longman, New York.

ISTAT, 1991, 2001. Istituto Centrale di Statistica. Roma: URL: www.demo.istat.it.Johnson, N.R., 1987. Panic and the breakdown of social order: popular myth,

social theory, experimental evidence. Sociological Focus 20 (3), 171–183.Johnston, D.M., Bebbington, M.S., Lai, C.-D., Houghton, F.F., Paton, D., 1999.

Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shift in knowledge and risk.Disaster Prevention and Management 8 (2), 118–126.

Johnston, D., Ronan, K., 2000. Risk education and intervention. In: Sigurdsson,H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Volcanoes. Academic Press, pp. 1229–1240.

Kokelaar, B.P., 2002. Setting, chronology and consequence of the SoufrièreHills Volcano, Montserrat (1995–1999). In: Druitt, T.H., Kokelaar, B.P.(Eds.), The Eruption of Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat from 1995 to1999. Geol. Soc. London, Memoirs, vol. 21, pp. 1–43.

Lane, R.L., Tobin, G.A., Whiteford, L.M., 2004. Volcanic hazard or economicdestitution: hard choice in Baños, Ecuador. Environmental Hazards: Humanand Policy Dimensions, Global Environmental Change, Part B 5, 23–34.

Lindell, M.K., 1994. Perceived characteristics of environmental hazards.International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 12 (3), 303–326.

Lirer, L., Munno, R., Postiglione, I., Vinci, A., Vitelli, L., 1997. The A.D. 79eruption as a future explosive scenario in the Vesuvian area: evolution ofassociate risk. Bulletin of Volcanology 59, 112–124.

Loughlin, S.C., Baxter, P.J., Aspinall, W.P., Darroux, B., Harford, C.L., Miller,A.D., 2002. Eyewitness accounts of the 25 June 1997 pyroclastic flows andsurges at Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat, and implication for disastermitigation. In: Druitt, T.H., Kokelaar, B.P. (Eds.), The Eruption of SoufrièreHills Volcano, Montserrat from 1995 to 1999. Geol. Soc. London, Memoirs,vol. 21, pp. 211–230.

Luongo, G., Mazzarella, A., 2003. On the time-scale invariance of the eruptiveactivity of Vesuvius. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 120,311–313.

Luongo, G., Perrotta, A., Scarpati, C., De Carolis, E., Patricelli, G., Ciarallo, A.,2003. Impact of the AD 79 explosive eruption on Pompeii, II. Causes ofdeath of the inhabitants inferred by stratigraphic analysis and aerialdistribution of the human casualties. Journal of Volcanology and GeothermalResearch 126, 169–200.

Mastrolorenzo, G., Petrone, P., Pappalardo, L., Sheridan, M.F., 2006. TheAvellino 3780-yr-B.P. catastrophe as a worst-case scenario for a futureeruption at Vesuvius. PNAS 103 (12), 4366–4370.

McGuire, B., 2003. In the shadow of the volcano. Guardian Unlimited: SpecialReports. URL:http://www.guardian.co.uku.

MESIMEX, 2006. Major Emergency SIMulation EXercise. URL: http://www.protezionecivile.it.

Mileti, D.S., Sorensen, J.H., 1990. Communication of emergency publicwarnings: a social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment.Federal Emergency Management Agency. 145 pp.

Miller, M., Paton, D., Johnston, D., 1999. Community vulnerability to volcanichazard consequences. Disaster Prevention and Management 8 (4), 255–260.

Newhall, C.G., 2000. Volcano warnings. In: Sigurdsson, H. (Ed.), Encyclopediaof Volcanoes. Academic Press, pp. 1185–1197.

Palumbo, A., 1999. The activity of Vesuvius in the next millennium. Journal ofVolcanology and Geothermal Research 88, 125–129.

Paton, D., Johnston, D.M., Bebbington, M.S., Lai, C.D., Houghton, B.F., 2001.Direct and vicarious experience of volcanic hazards: implications for riskperception and adjustment adoption. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15 (4), 58–63.

Pesce, A., Rolandi, G., 2000. Vesuvio 1944. L'ultima eruzione. Ed. Magma, 230 pp.Perret, F.A., 1924. TheVesuvius eruption of 1906; study of volcanic cycles, vol. 339.

Carnegie Institute of Washington. Publication.Perry, R.W., Green, M.R., 1983. Citizen Response to Volcanic Eruption: The

case of Mt. St. Helens. Irvington Publishers, New York.Perry, R.W., 1990. Volcanic hazard perceptions at Mt. Shasta. Environmental

Professional 12, 312–318.Perry, R.W., Lindell, M.K., 1990. Living with Mt. St. Helens: human adjustment

to volcano hazards.Washington Stat University Press, Pullman,Washington.Perry, R.W., Hirose, H., 1991. Volcano Management in the United States and

Japan. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press.Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Dipartimento della Protezione Civile,

Pianificazione Nazionale d'emergenza dell'area vesuviana, 1995. pp. 1–157.Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Dipartimento della Protezione Civile,

Proposta di Aggiornamento. Aggiunte e varianti alle parti A3, B, C1,eC2 della Pianificazione Nazionale d'emergenza dell'area vesuviana,2001. pp. 1–55.

Principe, C., Tanguy, J.C., Arrighi, S., Paiotti, A., Le Goff, M., Zoppi, U., 2004.Chronology of Vesuvius activity from A.D. 79 to 1631 based onarcheomagnetism of lavas and historical sources. Bulletin of Volcanology 66,703–724.

Rolandi, G., Mastrolorenzo, G., Barrella, A.N., Borrelli, A., 1993. The AvellinoPlinian Eruption of Somma-Vesuvius (3760 y.B.P.): the progressiveevolution from magmatic to hydromagmatic style. Journal of Volcanologyand Geothermal Research 58, 67–88.

Ronan, K.R., Johnston, D.M., 2001. Correlates of hazard education programsfor youth. Risk Analysis 21, 1055–1063.

Saarinen, T.F., Sell, J.L., 1985. Warnings and Response to the Mt. St. HelensEruption. State University of New York Press, Albany. 240 pp.

Santacroce, R., Cioni, R., Marianelli, P., Sbrana, A., 2005. UnderstandingVesuvius and preparing for its next eruption in cultural responses to thevolcanic landscape. In: Balmuth, M.S., Chester, D.K., Johnston, P.A. (Eds.),The Mediterranean and Beyon, pp. 27–55.

Scandone, R., Arganese, G., Galdi, F., 1993. The evaluation of volcanic risk inthe Vesuvian area. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 58,261–273.

Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285.Sparks, R.S.J., 2003. Forecasting volcanic eruptions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

210, 1–15.Vesuvius 2000, URL: http://www.westnet.com/~dobran/.VesuVia, 2003: La scelta possibile, URL: http://urp.regione.campania.it/urp/

vesuvia.php.Yoshii, H., 1992. Disaster warning and social response: the eruption of Mt.

Unzen in Japan. Disaster Management 4, 207–214.Wenger, D.E., Dykes, J.D., Sebok, T.D., Neff, J.L., 1975. It's a matter of myths:

an empirical examination of individual insight into disaster response. MassEmergencies 1, 33–46.